The Czech party has collected 2,500 electronic signatures to date and hopes to compete in October elections. It was just certified as an official political party by the Czech Interior Ministry under the name "?eskou pir�tskou stranu" (?PS).

"We do not want any political posts," spokesperson Ondrej Profant told Czech news agency CTK. "If we managed to implement our program exclusively on the level of thinking, which means that large parties would embrace it as their own we would be satisfied."

Like many of the other European pirate parties, the Czechs lack a broad political program; they care only about intellectual property issues and hope to partner with other parties in a coalition.

The French pirates have little more than a Facebook group and a WordPress blog at the moment, but they too hope to shape policy in the aftermath of the Swedish Pirate Party's win. France might seen like fertile soil for such a party to flourish, since the government has been pushing a tough "three strikes" law. To date, the group has 1,600 members of a Facebook group.

R�my C�r�siani, the founder of the French pirates, says that the new movement's values "are those of the digital generation that puts freedom, privacy, sharing, and transmission of culture and science, the opening of public space, solidarity and democracy at the center of its action.

"Our proposals are the flagship reform of copyright to allow universal access to culture through digital technology, the strengthening of direct democracy through the new tools made available via the Internet.... We are also committed to the preservation of individual liberties threatened in both the digital and in everyday life."

The parties are obviously in their infancy; whether anything comes of them remains to be seen. As we noted in our look at the history of the Pirate Party movement, few national parties outside of Sweden have yet garnered much momentum, and no one else has won at the ballot box. The Germans did succeed in convincing a politician to switch parties this week, however.

Interestingly, there isn't a whole lot of research on the economics of copyright. Some on patents, but not that much either - and it's not conclusive. At this point, it looks like the majority of patents don't lead to additional investments in R&D, but simply slow down progress. If I recall correctly, the major exception to this are pharmaceutical patents - largely because of the cost of trials that have to be funded only by the first company that brings the drug to the market.

I'm not convinced that patents need to be abolished entirely, but the current situation is far from perfect. (How do you like the patent for using a double click to execute a program?) Copyright, no doubt, also needs some changes. It does not make economic sense to translate works into all languages - yet, people are prohibited from translating said works on their own. This denies important work to a large part of the world.

We do want to encourage production of intellectual property, so there is value in protecting it in some cases... but ultimately, that IP has to be available to the world or why else would we want to encourage it? If we find that innovation happens even without protection (e.g. the fashion industry - they rip off each other all the time, which creates new trends and benefits all designers) and that the protection hurts the rate of innovation... well, then we need a new approach.

This isn't to say that I fully agree with the program of the pirate parties. However, debate on IP protection is direly needed and simply branding those opposing it as communists is just ignorant. Free market capitalism opposes any form of government-provided protection also. Instead of relying on ideology, we should actually do more research and see just what kind of effect IP protection really has.

edit: just an example. Back in the day, researchers kept their knowledge secret, because applying it was how they got paid. Newton did not publish his discovery of Calculus and when Leibniz did so, scientists in other fields could solve a large number of problems. Clearly publishing this information is more beneficial than denying others the use of it. What if you couldn't use the research of other scientists in your work without paying them (or their heirs) for it? It's greatly hold back scientific innovation - clearly not something we want. Why should commercial R&D be treated differently in every case, and not just where we can prove that it is actually beneficial?

Originally posted by Soriak:Interestingly, there isn't a whole lot of research on the economics of copyright. Some on patents, but not that much either - and it's not conclusive. At this point, it looks like the majority of patents don't lead to additional investments in R&D, but simply slow down progress. If I recall correctly, the major exception to this are pharmaceutical patents - largely because of the cost of trials that have to be funded only by the first company that brings the drug to the market.

I'm not convinced that patents need to be abolished entirely, but the current situation is far from perfect. (How do you like the patent for using a double click to execute a program?) Copyright, no doubt, also needs some changes. It does not make economic sense to translate works into all languages - yet, people are prohibited from translating said works on their own. This denies important work to a large part of the world.

We do want to encourage production of intellectual property, so there is value in protecting it in some cases... but ultimately, that IP has to be available to the world or why else would we want to encourage it? If we find that innovation happens even without protection (e.g. the fashion industry - they rip off each other all the time, which creates new trends and benefits all designers) and that the protection hurts the rate of innovation... well, then we need a new approach.

This isn't to say that I fully agree with the program of the pirate parties. However, debate on IP protection is direly needed and simply branding those opposing it as communists is just ignorant. Free market capitalism opposes any form of government-provided protection also. Instead of relying on ideology, we should actually do more research and see just what kind of effect IP protection really has.

edit: just an example. Back in the day, researchers kept their knowledge secret, because applying it was how they got paid. Newton did not publish his discovery of Calculus and when Leibniz did so, scientists in other fields could solve a large number of problems. Clearly publishing this information is more beneficial than denying others the use of it. What if you couldn't use the research of other scientists in your work without paying them (or their heirs) for it? It's greatly hold back scientific innovation - clearly not something we want. Why should commercial R&D be treated differently in every case, and not just where we can prove that it is actually beneficial?

This comment was edited by Soriak on June 29, 2009 03:58

I agree with some of what you say and not with others - but I have a question: Under US copyright law, are you prohibited from translating a work into another language for your own personal use, or only from distributing that translation? If you want to translate for personal use (and I believe you're probably allowed to - I'd be surprised if you weren't) that's fine, but I don't believe you should be able to distribute translations without the permission of the artist, regardless of whether he or she was intending to make the work available in that language. I guess I just fundamentally believe that the artist has final say on what people do with his or her work.

Regarding these pirate parties; they're a bunch of greedy scum. Can't help but think of them any other way - pirates are greedy scum. They're entitled brats who think they should have their entertainment for free because they'd rather spend their money on cars or food or whatever luxuries the theft of which they can't justify to themselves.

Originally posted by Corporate_Goon:I agree with some of what you say and not with others - but I have a question: Under US copyright law, are you prohibited from translating a work into another language for your own personal use, or only from distributing that translation? ... I guess I just fundamentally believe that the artist has final say on what people do with his or her work.

I'd assume you can translate for your own use, that right hasn't been taken from us yet. I fail to see what it has anything to do with what Soriak wrote though. (But I might have missed it.)

And furthermore, it's rarely about what the artists want these days. It's what the distributor wants. Or the copyright holder (which is usually not the artist). So drop the pretense that it's "for the artists".

quote:

Originally posted by Corporate_Goon:Regarding these pirate parties; they're a bunch of greedy scum. Can't help but think of them any other way - pirates are greedy scum. They're entitled brats who think they should have their entertainment for free because they'd rather spend their money on cars or food or whatever luxuries the theft of which they can't justify to themselves.

And when I read "corporate goon" I think of someone who rides around in a sports car. Wears a tuxedo, top hat and a monocle, and spends his days ripping off "honest workers". Also something about sitting in a restaurant eating and asking the waiter to go shoo away the starving children who are watching him eat from the window.

If you actually read what these parties are about it has more to do with the right to privacy than piracy. Currently copyright holders (companies) have more rights and less responsibilities in this area. Piratpartiet (in Sweden) tries to tip the scales back so the corporations don't have a right to infringe on our private life just because they feel like it.

Copyright is a gift from governments (ie the people) to producers. When it's used as a weapon against that same people perhaps it's time to take it away from them for a while and let them spend some time in time-out like the misbehaving children they are.

As for this:"Regarding these pirate parties; they're a bunch of greedy scum."

The pirate parties are not against copyright, if that is what you are referring to. They have nothing to do with the pirate bay, either. The parties are for more privacy, against censorship, and for less strict copyright law. How exactly that makes them "greedy scum" I do not understand.

@wordsworm: how can you compare this with communism, you have a completely wrong understanding of copyrights and the like:

The basis of copyrights is that the state guarantees protection for the copyright holder. In that, the state interferes with the natural way of things and interferes with normal freedom (since by making a copy I do not take away the original as in the physical world). Therefore it is rather state interference, thus closer to communism than to kapitalism to enforce copyrights and the like.

All true libertarians should oppose copyrights or at least want to limit these to more sound proportions. The same applies to intellectual "property" in general, which is a completely different beast than real (physical) property rights.

A technical correction: the name of the Czech party is "Česká pirátská strana". The version given in the article is not incorrect but in a wrong grammatical case (Accusative). Czech language has seven grammatical cases and in this situation the Nominative (singular) should be used.

wordsworm: Czechs lived in the communist regime from 1948 to 1989. We do know what does "communist" mean. The emphasis on freedom and individuality (as stated on the website of ČPS) is antithesis of communism as it has been implemented in the former soviet block countries.

And there is one important aspect that is not discussed very often: People who were active members of the communist party during 70s and 80s switched the sides very quickly and with no scruples. In a month period after the velvet revolution they emerged as "democratic" corporate elite of the country. In many cases they took over former state owned companies in which they were on management positions and started to climb a career ladder under the new circumstances. (I would have to give a small lecture on differences between pre-1969 and post-1969 communist to clarify it further.)

From this we can deduce that great part of people now working in top positions in international companies who call pirates "criminals" would do the career avidly in the structures of a communist party if it still hold the power.

The cleft is between those who spend their time building barriers (and strengthen their position at any cost) and those who knock down the barriers. Therefore we have oligopoly of five companies and "pirates" battling together.

@wordsworm: how can you compare this with communism, you have a completely wrong understanding of copyrights and the like:

The basis of copyrights is that the state guarantees protection for the copyright holder. In that, the state interferes with the natural way of things and interferes with normal freedom (since by making a copy I do not take away the original as in the physical world). Therefore it is rather state interference, thus closer to communism than to kapitalism to enforce copyrights and the like.

----

The idea behind communism is that no one owns anything. Many people are arguing that going through the trouble and expense of creating music, art, etc., should not grant the creator exclusive distributive rights. That's communism at its fundamental root.

=============

wordsworm: Czechs lived in the communist regime from 1948 to 1989. We do know what does "communist" mean. The emphasis on freedom and individuality (as stated on the website of ČPS) is antithesis of communism as it has been implemented in the former soviet block countries.------------Artists (or their copyright holders) having exclusive distributive rights to the works is exactly what gives the copyright its value. The Internet has seriously compromised this right. Countries like Indonesia (from experience) and China (from what I've heard), do not enforce copyrights. So, it's easy to find DVDs and CDs sold in every nook and cranny of Jakarta. This includes movies, music, and commercial software. If all of these mediums were allowed to be distributed by every Tom, Dick, and Chan, then what would happen to the thousands of people who earn their living from it? What would happen to the education system that feeds these companies qualified apprentices? It would still exist, but at an extremely reduced amount. It is the antithesis of capitalism to not protect the interests of copyright holders. It is an act of communistic usurpation of individual rights in terms of the copyright holders.

I don't like the idea of people snooping into my affairs anymore than anyone. However, there has *got* to be a way to master the issue of copyright infringement. As far as I'm concerned, if you're offering P2P works online and an enforcement agency happens to find you doing it, then I think that you should be excessively fined for doing it. If enough people get caught, then eventually only the most technologically savvy would even try it. It will never disappear, but at least the general population would feel compelled to pay for what they get rather than stealing it.

===================

All true libertarians should oppose copyrights or at least want to limit these to more sound proportions.-------

Then we should pass this logic onto other things as well. How about land. When you buy land, it's really just a lease which expires after 20 years. After 20 years, anyone can use it at all. Same could go for cars, planes, etc. Why should families have the ability to inherit billions of dollars worth of goods which have been passed from generation to generation while the copyright of someone such as HG Wells has expired and his descendants are not benefiting from his creative works. And why shouldn't they?

I do believe derivative works should be allowed after a period of time, however, in the same way that a patent offers protection. So, after 20 years any writer should be able to take a work like Star Trek and write a novel based on the characters.

In any case, as I said before - these parties are fundamentally communists and should be fought tooth and nail. They represent a very real threat to the welfare of every one of us. Today it's artists that get consumed by public greed - but what about tomorrow? Shall we force Microsoft to sell its software for $10 instead of $300, or should we simply adopt a system like what Indonesia has got and no one and nothing gets protected?

And what about companies names and such? A copyright can last a maximum of 120 years. But the names of companies are protected for as long as they're around. Coca-Cola, for instance, has been around for longer than 120 years, but the company is still protected ensuring that all investors have their investments well protected.

The same should hold true for all creative works: permanent copyright with derivative rights granted after a shorter period of time. Example: the original Beatles albums would be protected indefinitely. After 20 years or so, though, you could sing, record, and sell your own version of the same songs without having to ask permission or pay any sort of fee.

Power to the people! The people of the world need to take back THEIR culture and privacy rights usurped by the corporatists that only care about naked greed and control of the masses. The sheeple must wake up, stand up then step up!

Like many of the other European pirate parties, the Czechs lack a broad political program; they care only about intellectual property issues and hope to partner with other parties in a coalition.

Well, I'd expect Ars to be a bit more knowledgeable about the actual politics behind this. I don't know about the other parties, but the Swedish "Piratpartiet" main issue is that the same personal integrity principles should be valid on the internet as well as on terra firma. Granted, they also want a reevaluation of immaterial rights, but more as a consequence of not being able to uphold them in the digital age.

I'm a registered member of Piratpartiet and couldn't care less about the actual intellectual property issues. What I care about is that a failing business model paves way for new laws restricting our means of communication, and that goes for everyone I know that voted for them in the EU Parliament election. It's very much like the "war on terror"...

Wordsworm: still hunting witches?Your talk is not only wrong, it is also dangerous. Same old tactic used by McCarthy half a century ago.You are using a wrong syllogism. You tell us the Pirate party wants that, the communits want that therefore the pirate party is the communists.My cat is grey, elephants are greys, therefore my cat is an elephant.The communists also eat pizzas. Does eating pizzas makes you a communist? If so, then I'm a communist. And of course if I am a communist I am a baby eater, too. Therefore I eat pizzas with baby meat.This is plain wrong and dangerous because some people will be tricked by your false logic.

Originally posted by wordsworm:In any case, as I said before - these parties are fundamentally communists

That's an ad hominem. Saying that something "is communist" is not an argument, it's an attempt at an insult.

quote:

Originally posted by wordsworm:and should be fought tooth and nail. They represent a very real threat to the welfare of every one of us. Today it's artists that get consumed by public greed - but what about tomorrow? Shall we force Microsoft to sell its software for $10 instead of $300, or should we simply adopt a system like what Indonesia has got and no one and nothing gets protected?

Your arguments would be more convincing if they had anything to do with what the pirate parties' actual goals are. I haven't yet found any pirate party that demands that Microsoft should be forced to sell its software for $10 instead of $300.

quote:

Originally posted by wordsworm:And what about companies names and such?

Since society as a whole gains nothing from letting companies produce goods using other companies' brand names, nobody demands anything like this.

Intellectual property is about the common good. It sometimes makes sense for the state to protect certain "imaginary" things if society as a whole gains from doing so. Often, the same type of IP can have positive and negative effects. Copyright can encourage the creation of creative works, but can also prevent the creation of derivative works. Most people agree that the goal is to tune the law so the net benefit to society is a big as possible.

Opinions differ as to where that sweet spot is, but typically, it should be possible to have an intelligent discussion on this without resorting to calling each other "communist" or some similar nonsense.

The idea behind communism is that no one owns anything. Many people are arguing that going through the trouble and expense of creating music, art, etc., should not grant the creator exclusive distributive rights. That's communism at its fundamental root.

I see now. We both speak about different things. You mean theoretical principles of communism while I was describing the reality. In fact in communism everything belongs to members of the ruling party not to everyone. The real communism was never built, because it is an unsustainable utopia.

=============

quote:

Originally posted by wordsworm:Artists (or their copyright holders) having exclusive distributive rights to the works is exactly what gives the copyright its value. The Internet has seriously compromised this right.

My point was not that stealing music is good. I believe that there is a substantial difference between artists and copyright owners. Artists should be protected because they are abused by huge media producers. Present copyright protection does not help artists. Have you ever seen artists contracts with “the big five”? For details see article “Radiohead: Artists often screwed by digital downloads” from arstechnica.

Furthermore I believe that people in that mid-section of the music industry who create obstacle between artists and users behave exactly like real-life communists: build a monopoly, make others dependent on you, abuse your position, do it in a global scale, cut off any opposition (RIAA legal campaign in the USA) etc. So no, pirates are not communists - quite contrary.

Pirate parties (at least the Czech one) do not propose legality of thievery. They are against huge oligopoly which suffocates the music.

At this point, it looks like the majority of patents don't lead to additional investments in R&D, but simply slow down progress.

Patents and Copyright are monopolies created by the legislative system. The theory behind the original work to create IP law was that it was needed in order to protect innovation and forward movement. At the time when most of this was theorized, most artists and inventors were also owners (in part or full) of the same businesses which produced their works. As such, there were much closer ties, and also much more direct harm that could occur from infringement to those responsible for creation.

The problem that has arisen today is that the major sources of forward movement in the legislation of IP law are no longer creator-owners, but rather conglomorates whose business models are generally far removed from an individual creator-owner. Where it makes little or no sense, generally, for a creator-owner to purchase rights and then not use them, this is often very financially lucrative to a large corporation.

This is, perhaps, one of the most destructive facets of current IP law dealing with both patent and copyright, and in marked contrast to laws dealing with trademark, where there are ways to actually lose trademark, even trademark that is still in use.

We seem to have arrived at a point where, while still necessary, copyright and patent are both due a review for whether the social contract they embody is truly being upheld, or they are serving to exist for ends that no longer justify the full and guaranteed protection by the people who make up the basis of government, and who are often exploited by these provisions solely to fuel corporate profits and with no real gains in terms of innovation when looked at in respect to the price society pays maintaining these artificial monopolies.

I think everyone is due a reminder that copyright and patents were granted not to preserve a business model, or set of models, but rather to preserve cycles of innovation and social progress. I do not think we should abolish either, but it is due time to re-think the system as to whether it achieves the ends it should be and is as such worth are support in the current form. Certainly there must be a balance that could be found that places hard limits on copyright and patent in terms of use, ownership, and liability that would both see that society continues to be enriched by the resources poured into maintaining these artificial monopolies, while at the same time ensuring that enough recompense goes to those responsible for innovation and art that they may continue to seek those paths.

These should be the fundamental underpinnings of the system, not the mess we see today, where shell companies trade IP back and forth for no purpose but to wait to for someone to fall in a snare so they might litigate on it. This burgeoning industry of preying on "infringement" needs to be curtailed. In fact, it needs to be stopped outright. Copyright and patent need definite "use it or lose it" clauses, as well as other checks and restrictions. The public should not be in the business of paying to enrich those who keep valuable resources locked away, but this is exactly what has been happening. Even when indirect, we are in effect funding and providing for these illicit schemes and the ill-gained wealth they generate. There is no benefit to society here, and as such the laws supporting these corrupt business models need serious reform... not towards the elimination of IP law, but the re-sanitization and refocusing of it in terms of how it serves the public that create and allow for it to exist.

Intellectual Property is OUR property, the people's, and as such it DOES deserve protection, but it also needs limits to ensure that its continued existence is really serving OUR needs, the people's needs, and not merely the needs of a select few, bending it towards their own ends in ways that harm society as a whole rather than help move us forward. When telecom companies build infrastructure and lock out competition, there are justified cries for reform, even in locales where there are not complete monopolies. When a corporation creates (or buys) IP and uses it to lock out or set extortionate terms for competition, or keeps IP from market and sues anyone who brings to market something based on the same principles... we merely say "well the law says that's ok." Maybe it's time we remembered who originally wrote the fundamentals for those laws.

Then we should pass this logic onto other things as well. How about land. When you buy land, it's really just a lease which expires after 20 years. After 20 years, anyone can use it at all. Same could go for cars, planes, etc. Why should families have the ability to inherit billions of dollars worth of goods which have been passed from generation to generation while the copyright of someone such as HG Wells has expired and his descendants are not benefiting from his creative works. And why shouldn't they?

Seriously, there's a big difference between physical and intellectual property. There's only so much land to go around. There are only so many cars, planes, etc. When you buy it, it's yours to do with as you wish.

It's not the same with intellectual property, especially in the digital age. There is a potential for an infinite number of copies. Considering supply and demand, as supply goes up, price goes down. With an infinite supply, price would be zero.

Not to mention the average worker cannot continue to profit off work done 30 years ago:

Me: Boss, I don't want to work today. I want you to continue paying me for the work I did last month.Boss: You're fired.

And it's even more absurd to think you should get paid for what your ancestors did.

What people are wanting in general is a balance of power when it comes to copyright. In the past the balance of power was in the hands of the masses, with the copyright holders having a little power. Today the pendulum has swept to the other side and it is the copyright owners who hold most of the power, with the masses having little say. What people want is a fair balance between the two extremes. Without balance things just fall apart.

Oddly enough, you have more power if you release your grip a little. This is because the people you are trying to influence has more respect and have less need to defy the system. Hold on to the control too much and people find it easier to cheat the system­. There will always be people who cheat the system, but the system should be made so that less people want to cheat the system through respect.

I sent this via email to Nate, but I'll put it here to be sure it's actually here.

"Like many of the other European pirate parties, the Czechs lack a broadpolitical program; they care only about intellectual property issues andhope to partner with other parties in a coalition."

Actually, when we developed the European platform last summer, there wasuniversally accepted to be more than just copyright and patent issues(we don't accept the term "intellectual property".

As a general rule, we stand for increased personal privacy, but at thesame time much greater government transparency and accountability.

"The French pirates have little more than a Facebook group and aWordpress blog at the moment, but they too hope to shape policy in theaftermath of the Swedish Pirate Party's win. France might seen likefertile soil for such a party to flourish, since the government has beenpushing a tough "three strikes" law. To date, the group has 1,600members of a Facebook group.

Rémy Cérésiani, the founder of the French pirates, says that the newmovement's values "are those of the digital generation that putsfreedom, privacy, sharing, and transmission of culture and science, theopening of public space, solidarity and democracy at the center of itsaction."

MAJOR correction here. Remy hasn't just 'started the French party atall, au contrair. The actual French party was started about 3 years ago,and was recently recognised as an association (which is formalrecognition of a political party) - http://www.pp-international.net/node/451

None of the Pirate Parties recognise Rémy Cérésiani or his facebookgroup as anything official, or serious.

However, there is only one Parti Pirate in France that I, and the othersrecognise, and it's http://partipirate.org - especially now they'rerejoined with their former splinter-party, Parti Pirate Canal Historique.

Originally posted by wordsworm:The same should hold true for all creative works: permanent copyright with derivative rights granted after a shorter period of time. Example: the original Beatles albums would be protected indefinitely. After 20 years or so, though, you could sing, record, and sell your own version of the same songs without having to ask permission or pay any sort of fee.

Except quite the reverse has been happening, and only the pirate parties - you're not fooling anyone with the lame "pp = commies" insinuations - have started stirring these issues up. The old guard politicos have other things on their plate and previously none have been paying attention to the massive injustices perpetrated by big content.

Oh noes teh ebil commies, dey gunna steal ur lifes work D:

quote:

Originally posted by wordsworm:Countries like Indonesia (from experience) and China (from what I've heard), do not enforce copyrights. So, it's easy to find DVDs and CDs sold in every nook and cranny of Jakarta. This includes movies, music, and commercial software.

I've travelled some and seen for myself, you're talking about large scale commercial copyright infringement here as well as governments which lack the enforcement power usually because the people in the relevant section in charge are either paid to look the other way or are in on it themselves.

Guess what, non-commercial infringement in these places is nearly nonexistent. After all, why should "every Tom, Dick, and Chan" have to do so when real criminals already have efficient distribution channels in place? Even with cheap internet here people still buy truckloads of bootleg discs... and in many cases still don't realise those aren't legit because they're literally everywhere.

Your talk of going after internet p2pers is a pipe dream fantasy not rooted in reality. Until the real criminals are stopped, you're going to continue seeing $3 cd (and now dvd) shops flourishing here... as they have for years, decades. This isn't a new discovery.

It's like crucifying people for littering, when large corporations which routinely dump their wastes in our rivers and seas loom silently in the background, the true problem, ignored.

Nobody's saying littering (the small guys) is right, but Big Media has so much money... so why the fuck aren't they going after real criminals, the big guys? You aren't some small chickenshit fly-by-night industry, you're goddamn Hollywood. So flex that billion-dollar muscle where it will actually do some good. Going only after the easy targets shows your hypocrisy.

Originally posted by .Spartan:Power to the people! The people of the world need to take back THEIR culture and privacy rights usurped by the corporatists that only care about naked greed and control of the masses. The sheeple must wake up, stand up then step up!

yepDemocracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule.

power to the people! go to the parliament and kick those corporate as$es back to where they came from.

Originally posted by kaitliac:Patents and Copyright are monopolies created by the legislative system. The theory behind the original work to create IP law was that it was needed in order to protect innovation and forward movement. At the time when most of this was theorized, most artists and inventors were also owners (in part or full) of the same businesses which produced their works. As such, there were much closer ties, and also much more direct harm that could occur from infringement to those responsible for creation.

The problem that has arisen today is that the major sources of forward movement in the legislation of IP law are no longer creator-owners, but rather conglomorates whose business models are generally far removed from an individual creator-owner. Where it makes little or no sense, generally, for a creator-owner to purchase rights and then not use them, this is often very financially lucrative to a large corporation.

This is, perhaps, one of the most destructive facets of current IP law dealing with both patent and copyright, and in marked contrast to laws dealing with trademark, where there are ways to actually lose trademark, even trademark that is still in use.

We seem to have arrived at a point where, while still necessary, copyright and patent are both due a review for whether the social contract they embody is truly being upheld, or they are serving to exist for ends that no longer justify the full and guaranteed protection by the people who make up the basis of government, and who are often exploited by these provisions solely to fuel corporate profits and with no real gains in terms of innovation when looked at in respect to the price society pays maintaining these artificial monopolies.

I think everyone is due a reminder that copyright and patents were granted not to preserve a business model, or set of models, but rather to preserve cycles of innovation and social progress. I do not think we should abolish either, but it is due time to re-think the system as to whether it achieves the ends it should be and is as such worth are support in the current form. Certainly there must be a balance that could be found that places hard limits on copyright and patent in terms of use, ownership, and liability that would both see that society continues to be enriched by the resources poured into maintaining these artificial monopolies, while at the same time ensuring that enough recompense goes to those responsible for innovation and art that they may continue to seek those paths.

These should be the fundamental underpinnings of the system, not the mess we see today, where shell companies trade IP back and forth for no purpose but to wait to for someone to fall in a snare so they might litigate on it. This burgeoning industry of preying on "infringement" needs to be curtailed. In fact, it needs to be stopped outright. Copyright and patent need definite "use it or lose it" clauses, as well as other checks and restrictions. The public should not be in the business of paying to enrich those who keep valuable resources locked away, but this is exactly what has been happening. Even when indirect, we are in effect funding and providing for these illicit schemes and the ill-gained wealth they generate. There is no benefit to society here, and as such the laws supporting these corrupt business models need serious reform... not towards the elimination of IP law, but the re-sanitization and refocusing of it in terms of how it serves the public that create and allow for it to exist.

Intellectual Property is OUR property, the people's, and as such it DOES deserve protection, but it also needs limits to ensure that its continued existence is really serving OUR needs, the people's needs, and not merely the needs of a select few, bending it towards their own ends in ways that harm society as a whole rather than help move us forward. When telecom companies build infrastructure and lock out competition, there are justified cries for reform, even in locales where there are not complete monopolies. When a corporation creates (or buys) IP and uses it to lock out or set extortionate terms for competition, or keeps IP from market and sues anyone who brings to market something based on the same principles... we merely say "well the law says that's ok." Maybe it's time we remembered who originally wrote the fundamentals for those laws.

QFT +++

A most excellent and well articulated commentary on the situation. Outstanding!!!

My point was not that stealing music is good. I believe that there is a substantial difference between artists and copyright owners. Artists should be protected because they are abused by huge media producers. Present copyright protection does not help artists. Have you ever seen artists contracts with “the big five”? For details see article “Radiohead: Artists often screwed by digital downloads” from arstechnica.

------

I don't support RIAA. I don't buy their music. I wouldn't even download it for free. Not out of spite, but for the fact that I don't really like popular music. However, I not so daft as to ignore the fact that the rights that they're trying to carve for themselves has implications for myself as an artist. If they can put the fear of punishment into the hearts of the freeloaders out there to the extent that the freeloaders stop freeloading, then they've done every artist out there a favor. If the freeloaders would start paying for their music as they did before harddrives became so enormous and cheap, then I can guarantee you the RIAA would be bleeding badly anyways as recording methods and distribution costs are radically reduced thanks to the Internet. But, this does not lessen the time and effort required by the musicians to produce their art.

=====================

And it's even more absurd to think you should get paid for what your ancestors did.-----------------So, when your folks die - you figure their property should go to the state? What did you do to earn it after all? Paris Hilton will be a billionaire when her folks die. She'll continue to make profits.

If your grandfather invented the wheel, and there's one of his original wheels being passed down from father to son to daughter, whatever, do you suppose after a set number of years it should become public property? If your answer to that is 'yes', then at least you're being fair. If it's 'no', then you still don't get it.---------Seriously, there's a big difference between physical and intellectual property. There's only so much land to go around. There are only so many cars, planes, etc. When you buy it, it's yours to do with as you wish. ------Oh really? I'd like to see you copy a Ford, manufacture it, put their name on it, and then give away a million copies or even sell them. You figure Ford will sit on their butts letting you do that, or do you suppose they might do something to stop you? You buy a CD, and you can sell it. No one is saying you can't sell a CD you bought. They're saying you can't copy it for distribution. You can copy it for yourself - but not for other people. That's all the RIAA wants or any property owner for that matter. How is that different from what any other company in the world wants? Protection of its investments and property.

----------

Oh noes teh ebil commies, dey gunna steal ur lifes work D:---------And how do you feel when someone steals your stuff? Would it make you feel better if they then gave it away to people for free? I think I heard about that once - Craigslist guy thought it would be funny to give away a guy's barn full of stuff to folks so he put up an ad. The guy who owned the barn didn't find it so funny. It was his livelihood in there - tools and the like. Now, how about opening your house up for the neighborhood to sack?

The argument of land is a ridiculous comparison. You're arguing about an extremely finite resource versus an infinite, reproduceable schematic or piece of work. They aren't even close to being comparable, and in your words, if you can't figure out why a finite resource such as land or money or a house is completely and utterly different from a copyrighted piece of music, "you still don't get it".

The damage to intellectual work is minimal at best. Face it, intellectual work only has any value at all because put faith into it or appreciate it. Physical objects on the other hand serve various physical needs. While I believe the artist should have some control over their song for a limited period of time, the song passing on when they do to the public is nothing like taking a house away from a person when their parents die.

In one case, you are removing physical control over an object, akin to taking away a toy, in another, you are taking nothing, and simply allowing others to now use that song without paying someone who never owned the song and never held the rights to it, while the person who did make it doesn't give a crap because they're dead. It's basically and unfair monopolization on ideas that could be used for the betterment of the public good. Note, this doesn't apply to physical objects (IMHO) but has been known to happen with imminent domain.

And it's even more absurd to think you should get paid for what your ancestors did.-----------------So, when your folks die - you figure their property should go to the state? What did you do to earn it after all? Paris Hilton will be a billionaire when her folks die. She'll continue to make profits.[\quote]

Oh my god. You STILL don't get the difference between physical property and intellectual property. The difference is that my parents OWN that property. It's theirs to do with as they please. If they wanted to build an exact replica of their house on the property, or on another property they own, they could do that. If they wanted to buy the parts and build an exact replica of their car, they could do that too (although it would be cheaper to just buy a second car).

I don't have those rights with so-called 'intellectual property'. If I buy a CD, I should OWN it. I should be able to do any damn thing I want with it, including copying it for friends. I bought it, it's mine.

[quote]If your grandfather invented the wheel, and there's one of his original wheels being passed down from father to son to daughter, whatever, do you suppose after a set number of years it should become public property? If your answer to that is 'yes', then at least you're being fair. If it's 'no', then you still don't get it.

I was really hoping you'd catch the sarcasm with the whole wheel thing. Apparently not.

quote:

Seriously, there's a big difference between physical and intellectual property. There's only so much land to go around. There are only so many cars, planes, etc. When you buy it, it's yours to do with as you wish. ------Oh really? I'd like to see you copy a Ford, manufacture it, put their name on it, and then give away a million copies or even sell them. You figure Ford will sit on their butts letting you do that, or do you suppose they might do something to stop you?

Actually, it would cost me more to buy the parts and build a Ford than it would to just go buy a new one. And since Ford probably gets royalties off the purchase of those parts, they'd be all for it.

quote:

You buy a CD, and you can sell it. No one is saying you can't sell a CD you bought. They're saying you can't copy it for distribution. You can copy it for yourself - but not for other people. That's all the RIAA wants or any property owner for that matter. How is that different from what any other company in the world wants? Protection of its investments and property.

Because when I buy something, it should be mine to do with as I wish. No restrictions.

----------

quote:

Oh noes teh ebil commies, dey gunna steal ur lifes work D:---------And how do you feel when someone steals your stuff? Would it make you feel better if they then gave it away to people for free? I think I heard about that once - Craigslist guy thought it would be funny to give away a guy's barn full of stuff to folks so he put up an ad. The guy who owned the barn didn't find it so funny. It was his livelihood in there - tools and the like. Now, how about opening your house up for the neighborhood to sack?

I had a nice long post worked out in response to wordsworm, but then the server pooped out on me and I lost it. Since in that time both Moo Moo Cow of Death and atergo have nicely covered the banal attempts to compare copyright infringement to property theft, I shall abandon the big post I had berating you, wordsworm, for your lack of ingenuity and farcical attempts at logic.

Instead, I'd like to set up a nice little example of the problem of copyright for you and let you chew it over:

I come to work, I spend three weeks programming a piece of software for the company. The company pays me for the work I did for those three weeks and then the company owns the software to do with as it sees fit.

Now, replace the programmer with an artist (take your pick the kind--dancer, painter, musician, actor, all the same). Replace the company with the public. THAT is copyright. We, the public, have a contract with artists that the artist uses his creativity to make works that we like, we pay him for X amount of time to use those works. After X amount of time, we the public get those works. It's the exact same concept.

The problem is, the company and the programmer now have a middle man. The middle man is getting the programmer's money for the work the programmer did, and then not releasing the software from the programmer to the company who paid for it. Hence, the outstanding broken nature of it all. Add to that, the "programmer" now wants the amount of time we pay him for moved up to infinity plus two hundred years, and let's think how well this would go over in corporate America (or corporate ANYWHERE for that matter).